Loading...

The VTOL conundrum


reply
Ted Schulze Nov. 10, 2017, 7:36 p.m. PST

Yes very silent running.

reply
å🌐 Nov. 10, 2017, 7:25 p.m. PST
@Ted Schulze ~ Perfect.
I see you're not shy AND inspired to share!

EMP rises to the occasion, silently...! Yes?
Attachments

reply
Dusan Oct. 31, 2017, 7:17 p.m. PDT
@David Berglund
Thank you David.

reply
David Berglund Oct. 31, 2017, 6 p.m. PDT
Nice concept @Dusan Stan. This is a strategy that I had not considered.

Good luck in the contest!

-David Berglund

reply
Birdman Oct. 31, 2017, 2:36 p.m. PDT
Happy Halloween,Joking
No one knows how all this is going to play out. My feeling its going to be a mixed bag of copters, vertijets, and hover bikes and boards. You need only to look at You Tube to see the tremendous progress going on. Some of it by big orgs and some by back yard hackers. All this is happening with or with out the contest.
I think i figured out how to stack my motors to get inside the parameters, I still dont like it though.
Good luck to all of us.

reply
Stan Sanders Oct. 31, 2017, 11:36 a.m. PDT
@Frederick Averett
Their are 20 companies in the world that build transportation vehicles. The inevitable global gridlock of ground based personal vehicles will allow all of those companies to build personal VTOL vehicles. All of those companies have very efficient mass production facilities. General motors doesn't care if it builds sedans or verticraft , they just want to make money.
It took 20 years to phase out the horse and buggy for daily transportation and it could take 20 years to phase out the automobile depending on how fast gridlock occurs. The $185 billion spent on road and bridge repair could be used to build solar panels and wind turbines for all parking spaces to recharge the PAV batteries while parked.

reply
Dusan Oct. 31, 2017, 11:35 a.m. PDT
@Frederick Averett
Thank you Frederick, praise well received.

reply
Frederick Averett Oct. 31, 2017, 10:58 a.m. PDT
Stan, even at 78 million, that's a stretch. You would ABSOLUTELY have to invent a production line for carbon composites. You also failed to address the technical limits of the Tesla hardware. I'm a huge fan of Elon's but the tech for a car is different than the tech for a plane. You would have a hard time using a model S motor and battery pack for an electric 172. Look at the differences between Siemens and Tesla motors, compare the battery packs. I am all for a pure electric future I just get nauseous when exposed to high levels of conjecture and delusions of grandeur. I'll happily concede defeat if you would care to attempt to use real world fact and figures, those which can be cited. You don't have to go find links just tell me something I don't know that is factual. I should point out that Dusan didn't have to do this, his website has several pdfs that back up his claims. Also his claims are supported by physics. I wouldn't be talking like this if I hadn't seriously looked at buying a wrecked model S that still had the battery, motor and cpu intact for the expressed purpose of building an experimental aircraft around. Just like Viking aircraft engines do with Honda cars.

reply
Dennis K Oct. 31, 2017, 10:39 a.m. PDT
@Stan Sanders
Meaning the rest of us don't get to play for anther 20 years, or just not to copy your particular configuration?

reply
Stan Sanders Oct. 31, 2017, 10:09 a.m. PDT
@Dennis K
Hi Dennis, my patent includes a variable diameter rotor. Unfortunately the 8.5 diameter sphere does not allow for a large diameter prop.

reply
Dennis K Oct. 31, 2017, 9:52 a.m. PDT
@Dusan Stan
I wonder if it would be possible to do a variable diameter rotor.

reply
Stan Sanders Oct. 31, 2017, 8:54 a.m. PDT
@Frederick Averett
the $50k figure would be for the same number of personal vehicles sold yearly that are mass produced. That number is about 78 million.

reply
Ted Schulze Oct. 31, 2017, 8:40 a.m. PDT
@Dusan Stan
I agree what is needed is a completely new type of propulsion, probably similar to what UFO's use, a capacitor pulsed electromagnetic propulsion system that recharges the capacitor after each electromagnetic propulsion pulse.

reply
Frederick Averett Oct. 31, 2017, 7:23 a.m. PDT
Well put Dusan. Stan if it where possible to construct a vtol aircraft using the Tesla hardware Elon would have done it already. The motors are not meant for continuous high output. Perhaps they could be, but the liquid cooling system they used would have to be expanded, adding weight. Even if the aircraft could be constructed for for $50,000 in materials you would still have all the overhead (labor, cost of production facility to make payments on, utilities, insurance of various types). I just don't see how you can use the two most expensive components form a $100,000 car (the motor and battery are over 15k a piece for the top end model s) and say it will only cost 50k, have you bothered to price out good carbon fiber or avionics? Sorry if I offend but I have a real aversion to BS, like Glenn Martin Claiming 4 minutes of instruction is all anyone ever needs to use his jetpack. What about altitude density, cross winds, weather, radio communications, or are we to assume that you must use a jetpack in a vacuum, removed from the rest of the world?

reply
Dusan Oct. 31, 2017, 6:12 a.m. PDT
The VTOL conundrum hasn't been solved yet.

Until somebody comes with a system capable of generating 5-10 times more thrust in VTOL mode than needed for normal 'fixed wing' mode, and the constrain not to increase high speed drag and aircraft weight, practically meaning no big rotors, no bigger engines and no 'dead weight' components; until then, the VTOL conundrum is not solved.

reply
Stan Sanders Oct. 30, 2017, 4:07 p.m. PDT
@Dusan Stan
I have solved the vtol conundrum that will carry 4 passengers very efficiently
but it requires a 15 ft diameter sphere. The version that will fit in an 8.5 ft sphere with one passenger is very inefficient and unlikely to be desired by anyone when given a choice between the two vehicles. Like you said in a previous post, the market will determine the success of the vehicle just like the market for motorcycles versus automobiles for daily transportation. Even a motorcycle will carry two passengers.

reply
Dusan Oct. 30, 2017, 11:25 a.m. PDT
@Frederick Averett
For 2-4 person VTOL aircraft I have a lip wing concept as presented here: http://aliptera.com/#APV-1
It can be fitted with box wings as the synergy one, but the question is how the VTOL system interferes with the box wings aerodynamically. A lot of tests need to be done before one is able to answer.

reply
Frederick Averett Oct. 30, 2017, 10:46 a.m. PDT
I agree Dusan the forces of the market, and eventually sub-markets, of low cost - high utility light aircraft will be dictating design parameters. Also, what about having only the "lip" of the inlet pivot and the rest of the air-frame can be constructed in a conventional composite manner? I think combing your Lip Wing with Synergy Aircraft's Boxtail design could be a real winner in the 2-4 person capacity market.

reply
Dusan Oct. 30, 2017, 10:04 a.m. PDT
@Stan Sanders
The GoFly contest organizers can make the rules whatever they want, it's their prerogative. The success of a VTOL personal aircraft design will be driven by the market anyway.

reply
Dusan Oct. 30, 2017, 9:57 a.m. PDT
@Frederick Averett
The hinge and especially the actuator is challenging, I agree, and the challenge was demonstrated when testing our flying models.